Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 1 March	3 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tactile imaging

The result was The primary contributor to the article requested its delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:OR and barely concealed spam. scope_creep (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this page is not a WP article but rather a hijacked page in WP used for medical marketing. There could be an article on this but this is industrial waste and a real article would need to be generated from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator requested deletion (among other places) here. Since they are the only significant contributor G7 can apply in this situation. Unless someone else wants to take control of the article, speedy delete per G7. SkyWarrior 04:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basic contributor of the Tactile Imaging article requested its deletion due to not qualified and not ethical behavior of the WK's reviwers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egorov123 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dconcannon's contributions indicate that they are likely a promotional editor. After discounting their views, only one "keep" opinion remains. Sandstein 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabi Holdings Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only seeing passing mentions and unreliable sources, if there's better out there, I couldn't find it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources. There are better sources out there, and I found many. vote changed to Delete after TonyBallioni's detailed explanation. I still think the article is notable, however, it is too promotional and not well referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added references from Fortune magazine and the Huffington Post in addition to the articles referenced by User:L293D. Dconcannon (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete First, sourcing doesn't matter as it is utter spam and thus excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. Passage of WP:NOT is a requirement to pass WP:N in addition to the general guideline that is found there. It is impossible for a particular article to meet the notability requirements if it is excluded from Wikipedia's scope, and advertisements are. If we want to go at the sourcing, however, it is necessary to evaluate it. Since this is a relatively new AfC reviewer, I'll go through the sourcing here for their benefit and the benefit of other AfD participants. For the record, I am referring to the sourcing order in this version of the article.

Is an interview, and thus a primary source so it doesn't count towards notability.
Is both a blogpost (no editorial oversight from HuffPost, so not considered reliable), and an interview, so primary, making it double excluded for the purposes of notability.
Is on a website that accepts self-published content and the author is a "contributor" which means blogger with no editorial oversight. Not reliable.
Blog post for a PR firm.
Crunchbase: has not been considered intellectually independent in AfD since at least early 2017. It essentially recycles press releases or stories given to it by the company.
Company website.
Directory listing
Trade press, and largely based on sourcing provided by the company itself (as is common for trade press), meaning it is not intellectually independent and is excluded by WP:ORGIND.
Press release.
Only actual decent source here. Arguably has some journalistic analysis, but also contains a lot of basic stock updates. We can count it towards notability, but it is a very weak source, and we'd likely want to see at least two more strong sources, or three or four weak ones.
Reprinted press releases and statements from company employees, nothing more. Fails WP:ORGIND
Link spam to a shopping website
Same as #11, from the same author. Even if they counted (which they don't), they'd only count as one source because of this.

Nothing else appears on a BEFORE search either. I'll also note that neither of the keep !voters here are independent: User:L293D was the AfC reviewer who accepted, which means he is biased to defend his own personal choices. The other editor is the creator who appears to either be paid without declaring in violation of the TOU or have a massive COI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, then I'll be an independent Keep !voter. The subject is notable; the Fortune magazine source is an independent, indepth piece, as the piece from Racked (I don't see anywhere that they are a self publisher, they are quite clear they review content, don't accept it all, and pay competitive rates for content they print), as is the Fast Company piece (not at all a trade paper, it's a business magazine, published since 1995, if it's a trade paper than so is Fortune), as are the pieces from Women's Wear Daily (which is not only a perfectly respectable trade paper, but arguably the trade paper, "the bible of fashion", nothing to sneer at) which means Wikipedia: Notability is thoroughly met. The company concept (selling fashion through a multi-level marketing scheme) is ... intriguing... whether or not we like it, and clearly reliable sources have covered it enough that we should too. The article is not so long that making it less promotional without deleting it entirely is out of the question, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that is what people that think it is too promotional should do, not delete the whole thing. --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my analysis of the sourcing: with the exception of Fortune this is entirely churnalism, interviews, and repeating PR nonsense. It is reference bombing, and to be frank, a disgustingly promotional spam piece. We are allowed to take the obvious promotional intent of the author into account when determine deletion, and per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE and DEL14, we are more than free to delete for the NOTSPAM violation. AfD does not require the G11 level to delete, simply that it be promotional. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tony. On L293Ds talk you were urging him to "keep his chin up", and that he "seemed to be a bit down", and now you're saying the article he approved is "a disgustingly promotional spam piece"? Are you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

Anyway, the whole article is only 12 sentences long. Are all 12 sentences really "disgustingly promotional"? For example, here is the first sentence: "Cabi Holdings Inc. is a United States-based designer and seller of women's clothing that uses a multi-level marketing model to distribute products." Nope, seems pretty dry and factual. The second: "Cabi was founded in 2002[3] by co-founders Carol Anderson and Kimberly Inskeep, and is based in Carson, California." Likewise. The third: "As a multi-level marketing company, Cabi recruits independent distributors (referred to by the firm as "stylists") to sell products directly, often through social media or through a party plan." Also pretty factual. So, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Clearly at least the first three sentences are not "disgustingly promotional", right? So we can clearly trim no more than 9 sentences and keep, yes? And honestly, I think not all 9 of the others are "disgusting"; that's a pretty strong word. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and anyway, if its so promotional, then just reword the sentence you find too promotional and move on. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D: no, that simply rewards spammers and encourages them to keep placing advertisements in Wikipedia. This is likely a page that was created in violation of our terms of use, and as such, has no right to be here. It is actively harming Wikipedia even by existing, because it decreases the credibility of every non-advertisement we have here. Keeping this article lowers the value of Wikipedia to the reader, it does not improve it.

To the other point, we have to take the article in context as a whole, not break it down to the sentence level. I never said that this was G11 level, I said that it was disgustingly promotional, which it is. No one writes in 1960s ad speak anymore, Native advertising is a thing, and this quite clearly fits the bill. It is a ref-bombed article with utter crap sourcing (the subsequent analysis never addressed my point re: intellectual independence and I'll raise a new one re: WP:SPIP which also excludes all of them).

The rule of thumb here is whether or not top Google placement on the 5th most visited website in the world would be the most significant coverage a subject has received, and if so, whether or not the intent was to promote as a native advert. That is clearly the case here, and as such, we delete it as spam. There is no way to fix that, so the deletion policy is met. WP:N is failed on both counts (failure of NOT and failure of the GNG when read in the light of WP:NCORP), and all we are doing if we keep it is helping people exploit an educational volunteer project for commercial gain. That lowers our credibility, and hurts this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: If an article written in an encyclopedic tone is 'disgusting spam' and 'wholly promotional', then isn't every article on Wikipedia about a business an advertisement as well? Really, I can't find anything promotional about that article: find a promotional sentence in it and I'll reconsider my position. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D,it has to deal with the way facts are presented, which is the whole point of native advertising, you are not supposed to be able to tell at first glance that it is in fact an advert. This pretty clearly was: it included quite a lot of linkspam (including directly linking to an online storefront as a reference.)

I've removed the linkspam now, but the fundamental problems remain: the business model section is written as a how to guide to get involved with the multi-level marketing that it does. If you are unfamiliar with multi-level marketing, they are scams where you harass your friends to come sell clothing for you. Another major issue here is that it presents the highly dubious claim that the average independent contractor make $30,000 a year in the lead, sourced to a freelancer (not staff writer) for a website of unclear reliability. It is very common for freelancers to simply use stories literally handed to them by corporate marketing departments for this type of work (or to base them of the general instructions given by these departments).

This is an issue, because we know through academic studies, that as of 2000, the average MLM made less than $5,000. That is roughly $7,200 in 2018, and I highly doubt that the average has gone up, or that this company's contractors make more than quadruple the inflation adjusted average, yet that is presented as a fact based on a dubious source. It is also what you would expect from native advertising.

I don't want to go through line by line and explain the marketing techniques they are using, but I can if need be. The problem with this article is that it is an advertisement that is masquerading as an article and presenting the most positive spin on a company in Wikipedia's voice. No one writes in 1960s adspeak anymore because it isn't effective. This is the modern style of marketing that is being taught in all journalism and communications schools, and if you work with new content on Wikipedia enough, it becomes easy to spot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I see your point. I also re-read the Racked article, and it's clearly promotional, as opposed to neutral. Surgery coming. I think I can still support a Keep, but let me see what's left. --GRuban (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:This is an article in the same vein as any of a multitude of women's clothing companies on Wikipedia. Of the literal 100's of similar examples I could list, I submit Lane Bryant, Ann Inc., and Anthropologie for review. What differentiates Cabi Holdings Inc. from any of these examples? I tried to be as objective as possible and use reputable sources when I created the article. I understand the scrutiny but would love to know how to make the article suitable, as I am admittedly a neophyte in the editing of Wikipedia. Thank you all for the help and advice! Dconcannon (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, probably the majority of new corporate articles we get aren't suited for Wikipedia, and we used to be much worse at checking for this than we are today. That other articles are spammy is not a reason to allow a new one in. The best advice I can give you is what is found in WP:NOTSPAM: Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Again, I feel that I was deliberately neutral in writing the article and I fail to see how I violated 10 rules for publishing WP:10SR. I find it ironic that it's so easy to dismiss a company founded in the US by 2 females, with a female CEO that does $250 million a year in sales and is operating in 3 countries. Perhaps the general knowledge gap of the subject stems from WP:BIAS from editors outside of their customer demographic of 40-65 year old women. Additionally, you're calling references from well respected lifestyle and business publications such as HuffPost, Fortune (magazine), and Fast Company (magazine) poor references and "Native Advertising", which is patently false. Publications that engage in native advertising must explicitly state so in the articles themselves.Dconcannon (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TB but also a review of the sources suggests no actual independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tonyballioni. He did an excellent analysis of the sources which I checked over and agree with. We aren't a vehicle for promotion, either, and should remain that way. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Tonyballioni's review. A run-of-the-mill company with zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus, albeit weak, that the sources in question do not constitute substantive independent coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VideoGamer.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

34,476th place on Alexa rank. No significant history to speak of - the website has always been around that number. No significant independent coverage to speak of, pretty much all sources in the references section are about specific journalists leaving this website and such. The body of the article itself speaks about some random facts discussing some unknown journalists joining/leaving the website. This don't belong on an encyclopaedia I don't really under how this article even survived up until now. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is mentioned in many articles in Gamesindustry.biz. I would err on the side of saying it's notable since it seems to be pretty prolific in its coverage, if not one of the most popular sites._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's number 34,476th on the Alexa's rankings. Compare that to Gamespot.com which is number 546 or IGN which is 326th. If you ask me, any website that's beyond 10,000th+ place and which isn't a specific regional website is way unimportant for wikipedia. It definetively is not a "one of the most popular websites". Karl.i.biased (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popularity isn't an indicator of notability, see WP:RANK. Even if the site shut down, it would still probably qualify for an article. Here are some articles that would qualify as significant mentions in reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4]_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be a significant treatment in other reliable sources. In the list above, there's an interview, (basically) a press release, some attempted controversy. I guess you could make a stub about the topic, but it might end up being a perma-stub. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is more of an article than a straight up interview. While there are quotes from the staff, there is also a ton of information about the site that was written by the article's author. The 2nd is not a press release, but a news article written by someone besides the company. It's definitely enough to create a Start-class article at least, though it might not go beyond that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The Vice source is good, but the rest aren't significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks nn to me, refs are weak, appears to be a news aggregator requiring minimal human input. Szzuk (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While considered a reliable source (WP:VG/RS), this article is just a badly written summarization of their history. No reason to keep it in its current state. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Enforcer (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites no sources and is basically just a long plot summary. I see no evidence that it is notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old West Slavic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really doesn't add any new information. Topics already covered by West Slavic languages and Proto-Slavic. Would request deletion, merge, or redirect. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is probably the best option. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, No such language, nothing to merge. The article is unreferenced bullshitting. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) if the article remain unreferenced. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:OR if there was such a distinct language, it doesn't appear to have been called "old west" by any linguists or historians. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/rename. There is a consensus here that the content on this page does not require a standalone article, but should be moved elsewhere. There isn't consensus as to where it should be moved; whether to a single article with a different title, to various articles on ethnic groups which could cover the same information, or all of the above. This matter may be sorted out through talk page discussion, and the page turned into a redirect or nominated for WP:CSD#G6 once the merger has been performed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cogender#Merge -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cogender

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term is rarely used, ill-defined, overlaps with the term "third gender", and the usages seem to be ad hoc and unrelated to each other. CommuniqueNew2 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears this term is used in anthropological context to refer to specific indigenous societies. In this regard, it seems closer to Two-spirit which is a specifically North American term. I found two additional peer reviewed books or articles, and added them. --Theredproject (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Far and away the most common usage of the word is to refer to facilities, organizations, events, etc. which involve both sexes where one might expect only one, e.g., my first GScholar hit was for "cogender" facilities, i.e., prisons/jails presumably housing both sexes. What I can quickly see of the references here is the same: it means male and female together, whatever the context. In other words, it's an adjective, not a noun. Therefore the context makes obvious that a co-gendered deity encompasses both the male and the female. There's no co-gender; there are only things that are co-gender, and I don't see how we get an article on that. At any rate, what we don't get is this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. Mangoe is certainly correct about the most common usages of the word. But, that just means you need to dig a little deeper to find useful sources, because the other uses clutter up the search results.

I know wikis are not WP:RS, but Rational Wiki at least can serve as a jumping-off point for further research. I haven't yet figured out if The Era of the Co-Gendered Human is a WP:RS or not.

Somewhat more confusingly, I'm not sure what the objection is in this AfD. I don't think anybody doubts that there are people of non-binary gender. Are we just arguing about whether the word co-gender is a real term to refer to these people? ~~At the very least, this should be redirected to Third gender (if a better target isn't located), per WP:ATD~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more digging and I'm just not finding anything that justifies this title. Maybe there's a germ of a non-binary gender roles in historical cultures article (and thus we should rename it to something like that title, but the specific term co-gender, used in this way, doesn't seem to be justified, as CyreJ points out below.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The problem here, essentially, is whether we are going to help someone co-opt a word that people have as a rule used for something else (and it a pretty obvious way, at that) to coin a neologism. My reading is that the attempt didn't "take", and that the usage of it to mean a sort of by-designation hermaphroditism hasn't caught on. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete A term having a second, far more common meaning doesn't in general mean we can't have a article about the minority use of the term. However, I agree that this one seems to be a neologism (for various historical and anthropological phenomena) which isn't sufficiently established. It's hard to tell if it's a common concept in the literature. An ideal source would not just use the term, but give a definition and discuss its usage. CyreJ (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - some info can go to Mapuche, some to Iban_people, in cultural sections, and maybe some into the various homosexuality articles, but otherwise I'm not seeing this term being worthy of its own article. No redirect necessary since there's no one place to send people. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any sourced data into the main articles if it isn't already covered there. We have a bunch of overlapping and poorly sourced articles in this field that could be consolidated. As long as culturally-specific content doesn't wind up conflated with sourcing/data from the wrong cultures, or put into articles where they don't fit (this is only a problem when editors don't read the sources), I'm all for some streamlining. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Izno (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade Classic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page has only one source, Gamefaqs, which is unreliable. Even then, the article seems to lack any sort of notability whatsoever, and is really just composed of a couple sentences. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Notable arcade titles, but notability cannot be transferred to this particular series. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Plenty of SIGCOV in RSes:

The Electric Playground - http://web.archive.org/web/19970804174137/www.elecplay.com/portable/ast-mis.html ; http://web.archive.org/web/19970804174044/www.elecplay.com/portable/cent-mil.html ; http://web.archive.org/web/19970804173859/www.elecplay.com/portable/galaxgal.html
Total! - http://total.bee-ware.ch/tests/gb/gb_Asteroids&MissileCommand.jpg
Full page review in GamePro - https://archive.org/stream/GamePro_Issue_074_September_1995#page/n85/mode/2up
Allgame - https://web.archive.org/web/20100215220945/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=18074&tab=review ; https://web.archive.org/web/20141211121553/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=7307&tab=review
EGM (archived here in .CBR format)
Series won the Game Players 1995 Holiday Edition (Vol. 8, No. 13) "Best Game Boy Game(s) of the Year"

And that's literally just what I found in like 10 minutes. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Those seem to be notable, so I'll withdraw it. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Rock

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wrestler. The references section looks quite impressive at first glance until you see that most of the references are either from fan pages or podcasts, or are not substantially about Jonah Rock. PROD was removed without comment by an IP user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content hardly justifies the number of references and I share the nom's concerns over that. Attempts to inherit notability from Pro Wrestling Noah and The Mighty Don't Kneel. Fails notability test. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom - lots of sources to sift through but none of them convey the necessary notability. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of primary sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Go get more famous and then come back. ;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only primary sources, does not really pass WP:BIO. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Okonkwo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep entry already contains several citations to very substantial coverage of this individual. Not sure what the problem is. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very simply put, I fail to find these "references" in-depth or non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opatachibueze (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Me too, I was starting to take an offence but I am trying hard to understand what reddogsix wants. What do you need for the references to be in-depth or non-trivial. Most entertainment celebrities in Nigeria only appear in blogs.

Delete the souces are not indepth nor substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's be realistic here. Pulse is an established news and media agency in Nigeria. InformationNG is among the top Nigeria news sources and is listed as one of the top visited sites in Nigeria. We all know that we are talking about the youngest billionaire in Nigeria. So why is the question not how to solve the problem but whether the article should be deleted. Opatachibueze (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took another look at the page, I accept there were some shabby statements by me and mistakes (I am yet to get used to visual editing) so copy and paste made me miss some information. I've scrutinized the page and added more information where necessary. @reddogsix and @Johnpacklambert can you recheck and let me know your thoughts. Opatachibueze (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criteria G11 and G12. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Holdings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was listed as a speedy, but appears to be a borderline case due to the (claimed) revenue and real estate holdings of the subject. Listing here for broader review. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. I nominated it for speedy, but the AFD rationale does make sense. It's no longer the G11 fodder that was originally posted, by an editor whose work to date has a strong whiff of paid editing, but the notability problem remains. I can't see any independent coverage online in WP:RS, just a few press releases and a legal document on Justia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've re-nominated this for speedy deletion, this time as G11/G12. I'd started removing the copyvio, but when I found copying from a third source I realised there'd be essentially nothing left. I don't expect we've heard the last of this, so in many ways it'd have been preferable to let this discussion run its course, I know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I did not think to look in books because there was no coverage in newspapers. Ban nomination on my part. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 04:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddie Kapers Parade

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the notability criteria for events. Specifically it has only routine local coverage. Even that coverage is of the 'fluffy bunny' variety and not the in-depth coverage which would contribute to notability. Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows plenty of coverage for this historic event. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaArmy: Wow! I do not know how I missed that. Well yes I do - I assumed that because it did not show up in the news that there was no reason to look in books. Withdrawn Jbh ^Talk 04:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insolence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND notability criteria. Closest claim to notability I can see is touring with a few notable bands, but there are no reliable sources to support that whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am the trademark owner and the founder of this Band INSOLENCE and the Reliable Source for information on this band. But people keep editing this page with false info. Not sure what to do and not receiving help from Wikipedia. But this page should not be Deleted. RudeBoy Mando (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Armando CardenasRudeBoy Mando (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find reliable sources indicating notability, fails WP:BAND Greyjoy^talk 07:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about it yet, and no citations.Ira Leviton (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game company. Has perhaps a passing mention in news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt they ever had much or anything to do with the Pixeline franchise (well known in the Nordic countries) that was initially developed in the 90s by Studio 1-2 in Herning, and later developed and distributed by Krea Medie. Osao seems to be out of business now, and they never were notable. Delete per DEL8. Sam Sailor 15:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Pixeline to Draft:Pixeline as that could potentially be developed with some news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, thanks AngusWOOF. (Have a look at User:Evad37/MoveToDraft, makes life a lot easier in that situation. Details at WP:DRAFTIFY.) Sam Sailor 15:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Only reliable sources I could find was one press release article for the game Chronology [5] and one for Pixeline & Jungle Treasure [6], which briefly refer to osao, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Looking into Pixeline, osao weren't involved in the other games listed in the article's table, they just made the one non-notable spin-off game. ElfLady64 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the references I found to this company are in relationship to the game Chronology. Nothing about any of the other games listed, and nothing in the way of significant coverage of the company itself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator due to WP:FOOTY being met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sheldon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:FOOTY, not enough for WP:GNG. Just seems like someone who is good at marketing himself NZFC^(talk) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit as he appears to have played multiple seasons in the United Soccer Leagues which qualifies for notability here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues though I agree the last part of the article feels promotional. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yip I'm an idiot. Withdrawn nomination NZFC^(talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large part of that is because he has a YouTube following that has 150,000+ subscribers, so the content can be hard to control & source. I've deleted the Waterside Karori info multiple times but it keeps getting added, so I added a cn tag instead. Oh, and keep per SportingFlyer. Jay eyem (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Peters (pitcher)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod because the person says the sources are reliable. Giving them the benefit of the doubt (I didn’t check), but for the sake of the argument let’s say they are right, I believe that is irrelevant. From every sports related deletion discussion I have seen, peters fails all the major criteria for notability that I can remember. The lead sentence indicates he is known as a high school phenom. His college athletic career is not discussed. And he has yet to play pro. To me that screams non notable. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBASE so must meet WP:GNG, and it's an interesting one: Peters was the only high school baseball player to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated until at least 1997, per one of the sources there. Four out of five sources are Sports Illustrated as they did follow-up articles on him, as he never made a large impact after high school. The other is a two- or three-sentence LA Times article for setting a high school pitching record. There are also other sources out there which do look-backs on teen sports phenoms. I don't think it gets him past WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, but it's certainly a more unique AfD than your average minor leaguer. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Three articles exclusively about him in Sports Illustrated plus two other sources that mention him borderline satisfy GNG IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's never going to be a long article, but I found enough sources outside SI to document his (short) career. As an all-time high school record holder (which record, I understand, still stands) he's someone who shows up in the record books even at a below-pro level. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to go weak keep due to the limited scope, but the look back on the other teen sports phenoms puts it over for me. Its an exclusive list and looks like there is sustained interest in those subjects. That gives it more of a lasting coverage feel that pushes me to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. the keep remarks above seem to be based entirely on one sports illustrated article and its follow up.. Seems like a clear case of WP:1E. There isnt any content on the page and it seems like very little can be written about him so clearly he is not notable. A high school wins record by itself means nothing.. we don't know what the quality of the opponents his high school played against.. if it was a fairly weak amateur league that doesnt mean much... If he was that great a prospect he would have been drafted but apparently never was.. there is nothing even about him playing in college. Spanneraol (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. He may very well been a huge fish in a very tiny pond.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a 53 game winning streak is a single event? That doesn't seem right to me. Just because the subject's glory days were limited or the glory was due to tiny pond doesn't make him unnotable. It was still glorious and reliable sources reported on it as such and there has been some followup reporting. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially yes since the claim for notability revolves around one SI article and pitcher "wins" are too dependent on other factors that its not that big a deal anymore. It's still the only thing thats been reported on him so yes it qualifies as one event ("the win total") and thats it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kvng. A 53-game win streak lasting over multiple seasons is not one event. Also, wins is a major statistic (that is why there is an article on the 300 win club and one of the three metrics in the Pitching Triple Crown). Even under the modern baseball philosophy of wins meaning less than WAR, in the 1980s when the subject played wins were still a big deal. Also, while the pond may be small, it appears the team won several state titles, so at some point the competition was strong (and 4A is a large school division). All this is academic. Multiple pieces in SI and the cover in the 1980s, when the magazine was a BIG deal, give us a lot of coverage. The retrospective from Mental Floss gives us multiple sources and lasting coverage. GNG met. RonSigPi (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still articles about one thing.. the win totals.. not about him in any sort of significant way. high school stat records are rarely cause for articles. Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don’t read SI but I have flipped through it in places like doctors’ offices. Is the coverage in one of those short paragraphs where they highlight people for whatever reason or was it an in depth article? Or even one paragraph about him in a larger article, say about high school athletes? The answer makes a difference. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the "Faces in the Crowd" section. This reference [7] (already in the article) is not a Faces in the Crowd blurb. In general, magazines have feature stories on what they put on the cover. RonSigPi (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MensanDeltiologist: there's WP:SIGCOV but there's a lot of distance between the examples given there but it is clear that the coverage does not need to be about the subject to contain significant coverage of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I totally get what you are saying but if I do, then I can only say this: Say there is a cover story about another hot high school pitcher this summer and the Magazine makes a one sentence that the author hasn’t seen anyone that interesting since ________ . Well, IMHO that confirms nothing more than _________… caught their attention I would hardly say it is a ringing endorsement of their prowess.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is substantial. Article should be expanded with SI's followup piece on injuries and career following his win streak. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The level of coverage here appears to rise to the level needed to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NHSPHSATH says High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. A cover story in Sports Illustrated with multiple follow-ups clearly meets that. I have no doubt there are contemporaneous newspaper sources as well. That said, the current (stub) is in desperate need of improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. closer withdrew as wrong venue (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino

~~:User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino (edit | [[Talk:User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)~~ ~~:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)~~ Delete: The original article page was deleted five times then userfied and deleted again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philatino. It sits here untouched 8 years later and the editor has made just 1 edit since then, to this page in 2011. It is highly unlikely there will ever be any improvement to bring to notability. ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP: SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Carper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, promotional, and text pasted from https://www.stopagingnow.com/about_us/jean_carper Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added sources, and believe she may meet WP:AUTHOR. However, there are many sources that appear to have lifted text from an earlier WP article, leading to potential citogenesis issues. It may be best to delete the career section and re-write. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My complaints are answered, so I'm happy to withdraw. Rathfelder (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:AUTHOR for "The person's work (or works)" have "won significant critical attention", WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" and WP:GNG for "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Software

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn. tagged since mid-2017. Refs are PR, interviews and company's info, ie no solid scondary sources. Also, no special achievents claimed. Just a regular software mill. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. No notability or independent sources. Wqwt (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyashree Mote

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G11 - definite case as it currently only serves to publicize a person. Requires substantial rewrite if not deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence needed. Wikipedia covers such a vast area of content that no-one, however avid a deletionist, can say for certain. In such cases I feel the deletionist should check whether any regular editors specialise in Indian regional tv performers. Through long experience I have accumulated a list of co-editors whose interests correspond with mine, and I check with them to see if they agree with the deletionist. Please note I am not including vanity biographies here (eg Mark Daines is an exceedingly good bloke from Basingstoke etc") as usually they contain basic formatting errors. This article though looks "Wikipediary" so we need to do more research. Bashereyre (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for her role in the Priyanka Chopra film Kaay Re Rascalaa and the TV series Prem He. The problem of English sources covering Marathi-language pop culture being of crap quality is a universal one in this area which has nothing to do with her notability: it needs a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it has evaded your memory, you need to provide sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The English sources (checked against other sources) make clear that she held major roles in a notable film and a notable TV series (at least); beyond that, the article needs the attention of a Marathi-speaker due to the poor-quality of the English-language sources about the whole field. Mass nominating entire fields of people with a copied and pasted explanation and no individual inquiries as to their actual notability is systemic bias in action. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in films and television as shown in sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources devoting her non-trivial coverage, please!~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single reference doesn't cut it. If the reference were available, they would be put in, and removed for being non RS. Most of them are routine coverage, that are generated by early branding and marketing efforts. There are no genuine references, that talk about the lady herself, outside the branding. The lady has only been working for two years effectively, and the pattern for actors who are trying to get into the industry, is try it for several years, then if the succeed they stay. There is no evidence that she has left that intial stage. Until there is some some work that effectively establishes here notable, then she is not suitable for Wikipedia. Fails to assert WP:NACTOR.

I don't see any evidence of notablity for significant in multiple notable film, nor a large fan base or cult, nor a unique or innovative contribution to the field. I see an early stage lady actor, who is starting her career, with very stage early marketing efforts providing most of the coverage. Also fails to assert WP:SIGOV scope_creep (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? ~Moheen Ree ^{(keep talking)} 17:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable notability: director of "an institution for higher Islamic research and education", founder of magazines, quite a few books. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is written and sourced poorly, and upon first glance it seemed like a notability issue. However, the sources do seem to come from a variety of unrelated sources, some governmental while others from large institutions of learning, and the subject's educational background appears to be international (Usmani and Abu Ghuddah are highly respected and not only by their own sects, which is a sad rarity). I'd say the subject passes the notability test and also contributes to a critical area: the overwhelming majority of articles created on South Asian religious figures are about non-notable subjects in an attempt to generate attention via Wikipedia. When a legitimate attempt is found to write an article on a notable subject in good faith, then there is a serious contribution to a subject area which is lacking. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It seems that he is notable. --nafSadh did say 22:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Kulkarni

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the thousands of actresses whose articles need to be deleted, mentioned in another currently ongoing deletion debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Struggling to even confirm she exists beyond cast lists of her one film, gets lost in a Google search amongst other non-notable people of the same name. Would have no objection to recreation if a Marathi-language speaker turned up enough to establish notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one prominent role so does not pass WP:NACTOR yet, may pass in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Martin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's subject has requested deletion; I don't believe he is notable enough to warrant our disregarding his request. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP request, page averages 1.5 views per day. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balagokulam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed this a long while ago; the PROD was removed by an editor later indeffed for socking. I am still unable to find evidence that this organization meets GNG. There are mentions of the name in news sources, but these are mentions only, and frequently refer to organisations other than this one. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, not referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference I can find is an article on a media site called Samvada, and I don't know if that's a reliable source. There are articles on the organisation's own site which I can't read, but on balance I would still say delete. Tacyarg (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoe Hanba

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Japanese dubs of foreign media are not considered to be notable. Subject is not shown to have any notable roles in any notable series. Article is inadequately sourced in JP Wiki as well. MizukaS (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably not up to date on the standards for this, but the first character that was unlinked in her non-dubbing section was Etna (Disgaea), which has its own article. This leads me to believe there may be other "notable roles in notable series" that aren't expanded upon in the current version the article. Dekimasuよ! 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her character is listed third at List of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar characters, which leads me to believe that may be a main character in that series. Popolocrois (anime)#Luna (Lunattress Andolink) says "main character in the second series." Again, I don't know anything in particular about these series. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello, I think I found the news references from Google search both in our language and Japanese, there is no reason to want to delete the article without having any precedent of the work done by the Japanese voice actress Tomoe Hanba. First, we should translate from Japanese Wikipedia to get valid references. 148.0.108.191 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the news articles here? Do they show significant coverage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 148.0. is Special:Contributions/148.0.103.156 evading a block. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2018

Binksternet believes that I was evading the block for this anonymous ip recently banned for a year, I do not know what you're talking about, I was correcting these celebrity articles when he does not let me explain about the case of the Japanese voice actress Kikuko Inoue only the internet restarted me in a matter of minutes before.. 148.101.32.39 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are the same editor that got blocked as Special:Contributions/148.0.103.156. You keep edit-warring on Japanese voice artist articles, for instance this reversion you performed today. You got noticed for edit warring in the first place, then the IP was blocked as a proxy. To me, it appears as if you have tangled with AngusWOOF for four years over your edit warring at Kikuko Inoue. Looks like you got blocked as Therainbowsend, Wooeyparks and Kyleoconnor. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her anime work isn't that notable - supporting characters at best. However, she is a regular in the Disgaea series, and has mentions in several video game articles. [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If something like that, for example: [11] [12] [13] [14] and apart from saying that he has no notable role, well I did not find any reference about her anime work but I found something Hanba participated in the Japanese dub as additional voices in the anime Azumanga Daioh which was not accredited. [15] 148.0.117.206 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't do much in the way of anime/VA stuff, so I don't know if I'll give a stance or not, but I thought I'd note that voicing Etna in the Disgaea series would be a...less-than-minor role, at least. It's a long-running, relatively popular worldwide video game franchise that's been going on 15 years. She seems to be used as a mascot of sorts for Nippon Ichi Software, though I have no idea how prevalent this VA is in the character's in that area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 16:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has voiced many significant roles, which passes WP:ENTERTAINER for voice actors ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") Lonehexagon (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are her notable roles? I'm only seeing Etna in Disgaea listed. Was she a major voice in other video games? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ENTERTAINER. per Lonehexagons rationale. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Irving

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable person. Being rich != notability. Few sources other than ones that mention her position and wealth. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Including this information here as I included it when Vermont tagged initially tagged it for speedy delete — Reasons why I believe individual is notable, and therefore should not be deleted:

Only member of the Irving family on the C-Suite of Irving Oil — likely to succeed ownership of the company,
Heir to the Irving fortune (net worth of $15.5 billion USD — 2nd richest family in Canada, daughter to 233rd richest person in the world)
Other family members all have wiki pages (K. C. Irving, Arthur Irving, John E. Irving, James K. Irving)
Multiple board positions on other organizations (Dartmouth College fund, Rothesay Netherwood School, etc.)
Made $80 million donation to Dartmouth College for the Irving Institute (http://irving.dartmouth.edu/)
Individual has been targeted by Dartmouth alumni in arguments over the controversial donations made by the Irving conglomerate
Listed as 21st most powerful Canadian business people

Where was she listed as the 21st most powerful? Also, WP:INHERITED. _{Vermont | reply here} 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the link. _{Vermont | reply here} 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person is relevant enough to justify an article. I will say though that this is only because of her C-Suite position in Irving Oil and the media coverage related to it. The 21st most powerful listing is tangential since that is only one of many different lists of the most powerful women, Canadians and business people, however there is no doubt that in this instance, (money = notability) is a true equation. And I think it is always so to some extent, I challenge you to find a biography of someone that had no money here, there are very very few. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant keep, ^{Vermont asked for my opinion} One of the few cases I think we ought to bend WP:GNG: She's not (yet) notable in her own right, but if, say, you're googling around looking for information on the future of Irving Oil (not infeasible) this article would probably be pretty useful to you, and so IMO it should stick around. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

little note: I asked on IRC for alfie's thoughts. I did not ask alfie to comment here, per WP:CANVASSING. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Drop me right in it, why don't you ;) but yes this is true, I just decided to put my thoughts here becuase they're useful maybe -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when she does succeed to the head of the company. We don't hold WP:GNG in abeyance just because there's a possibility that a stronger claim of notability might emerge in the future, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL — we wait until a stronger notability claim has emerged, and then create the article accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't seem to make much sense as it discounts the sources which explain her significance. And where's the consideration of alternatives to deletion? Our editing policy applies. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (withdraw) I'm withdrawing my nomination of this article. When I nom'd it, it was a short, 1-source article that didn't return much on the google search I did. It's now much more populated with information, and although it's notability can be contested, I think it should be kept. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what the article looked like at nomination, but the current sourcing of the article passes WP:GNG and establishes notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demlang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An insignificant 'language' made up by a group of people on a social network site. There are no reliable sources to suggest there is such a thing that even exists. MT Train^Talk 06:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. Demlang is as notable as Ithkuil. I even left a link to their website. How is that unreliable? User talk:meseretreta — Preceding unsigned comment added by meseretreta (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is a website with user generated content, making it unreliable. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mazeika

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player. Contested WP:PROD. Wizardman 03:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clearly non-notable baseball player, never played in the major leagues, no sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC

@SportingFlyer: Please read WP:CSD, User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:Thank you, I have and I stand by the assessment. SportingFlyer talk 18:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333. Being selected in the MLB draft is enough of a claim of notability to make the article ineligible for A7. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again, contested prod is misleading. Prod was for blp lacking sources. As I provided a source I deleted the prod as it no longer applied.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NBASE and no sign of meeting WP:GNG; coverage such as [16] is trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mile 22

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this is a notable movie. Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NFILM at this point. If it does in the future then can be recreated. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable. It will have wide-release with a summer release date. A sequel is already being planned. I added some sources and a few other details. Tbb 911 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else have any opinions on the article since Tbb 911's improvements?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soon to be released film with highly notable cast members and plenty of coverage already. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are sufficient to meet the notability guidelines at this time. In my opinion, they were marginal when the article was nominated but the additional sources added since makes this a clear keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the films that actor Mark Wahlberg collaborates with director Peter Berg. Also the sources are reliable and production is going to begin soon. Evil Idiot (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Viers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is hopelessly promotional and awfully sourced. It should be deleted per WP:TNT even if notability is somehow established. Rentier (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cjdns

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly primary-sourced, one RS, no other evidence of notability. The software doesn't appear to actually be in use out in the world, still "alpha" development quality. This article is very WP:TOOSOON. David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. restarting an article based on the sources is permitted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic festivals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list, quite possibly original research. Unclear what is included and what is not, and why. I guess supposed to list festivals celebrated by Baltic pagans (or neopagans?), but why then include Estonia which belongs to Uralic group? I am also not seeing the reason for the list - What do Latvian festivals have in common with Lithuanian to belong in the same list? In general, the Baltic mythology is a very messy area full of neopagan b/s due to lack of reliable historical sources and this list is not helping any. Renata (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I made this article was simply to translate a list of such festivals within the Lithuanian Wikipedia (Sąrašas:Baltų šventės) into English. They are supposed to be about traditional festivals observed by the Baltic peoples (in Lithuania and Latvia, because both of them practice similar cultures), but due to some user also including a list of Estonia, I added some more for Estonia as well. PulauKakatua19 (talk) please leave a reply. :D 16:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian list is not any better. Renata (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then somebody needs to do something at the Lithuanian Wikipedia to check if it is factual or not. PulauKakatua19 please leave a reply. :D 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Estonia, because it's not even close to including actual historical holidays/festivals or beliefs/traditions (almost forgotten now), hard to find a good source so not even Estonian Wikipedia has a proper article (et:Eesti rahvakalender is something... and et:Maavalla rahvakalender probably gets deleted). This Runic calendar is Estonia-related. Current holidays: Public holidays in Estonia, and we had Estonian neopaganism. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, heres a book that discusses some Baltic festivals - Urban Carnival: Festive Culture in the Hanseatic Cities of the Eastern Baltic, 1350-1550, and another - Baltic phrasebook) which goes towards meeting WP:LISTN ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not valid sources. The Baltic phrasebook is essentially a dictionary so can't be used to establish notability of anything. Urban Carnival is available in snipped view on Google Books and I cannot find any evidence it mentions any of the festivals included in the list. Renata (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a tentative keep based on the sources found by Coolabahapple, but this is clearly a calendar of events that are supposed to happen now in modern times. It is not framed as historical. The corresponding lt.wikipedia article appears to be quite different and defines the events as "state, national and religious holidays, memorable days." If this is accurate, it should be possible to prove this. But the existing content may not be accurate or may be original research. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer - please consider WP:TNT approach to this OR mess. Renata (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn due to misunderstanding. Learned something today. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Cameron

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO, as there is nothing to establish that the subject is notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, before you debate this, can I say that I have read that deletionists should always bear in mind that many editors update their article incrementally. I don't usually do this, but we have had a heavy fall of snow here and I saw my neighbour slip up. I just hit the create article button so it could be carried on with later and went out to help her up. Hope you will read the full article, not the history after one edit CheersBashereyre (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note this editor has only been on the site as an editor 41 days yet he seems to be able put articles up for deletion. I've been on the site 11 years have made over 60,000 edits and created 5,000 plus artcles and I would never dream of putting an article up for deletion without researching the subject first. How much research was the user able to do in the nine minutes between me creating it and Kirbanzo suggesting its deletion?

Kibanzo himself has now admitted he was a little trigger happy.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uh.. Speedy keep, with some why hasn't Kirbanzo already withdrawn it? On top of being an Anglican Archdeacon, the subject's career is widely covered by The Times and several reputable books, along with a Who Was Who entry and a Times obituary... Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed. 1 day is too soon to renominate just because you don't agree with the outcome and 100 people didn't participate. leave this 3 months at least. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-nominating for deletion due to lack of consensus. There is no indication that Slipstream is anything but another word for Hyperspace (or in the words of TVTropes, "our hyperspace is different"). Any searches for sources only bring up Slipstream (genre). Unless someone can come up with published proof that slipstream is distinct from hyperspace, it should be deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close This was re-nominated one day after the close of the previous AfD, in violation of WP:DELAFD, and should be speedily closed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By WP:COMMONSENSE, I am not sure how you can mark the previous discussion "case closed" as there were only 3 participants. It might apply in cases of lengthy "no consensus" with back and forth between editors... but really?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the previous AfD was wrongly closed, you should file a deletion review. You should not, by policy, launch a new AfD immediately because the precious one had the "wrong" close. That's I don't like it, and not an occasion to Ignore all rules. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per Newimpartial. I argued strongly in the previous AFD, with evidence, that the terms are not the same. Admittedly, that evidence is quite weak, but no evidence at all has been presented, either here or the prior AFD, that the terms are the same. The rationale in the nom is entirely without merit and in complete disregard of the prior discussion. A case of I don't like it I think. SpinningSpark 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "no evidence has been presented that the Earth has breathable air". Anyone with eyes can read the article and see that both are about using FTL travel through other dimensions. The article doesn't attempt to claim it's different, and in fact it is mentioned in Hyperspace as another type of hyperspace travel._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case you should have no trouble finding sources to counter my evidence. Here's another source that was not presented at the first AFD which directly addresses this issue. In The Escapist magazine an article by C J Miozzi, "5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility" has at no.1 Hyperdrive and no. 4 Slipstream. While Miozzi agrees that "there is no widely-agreed upon definition" of slipstream he looks in detail at the Andromeda incarnation of slipstream and gives a description which clearly puts clear water between it and his earlier description of hyperdrive, at least for the case of Andromeda. SpinningSpark 00:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says there is "no widely-agreed-upon definition", so the articles notability must be considered in the context of the respective shows that use it. Otherwise you are using WP:SYNTH to combine unrelated concepts of Slipstream into one article. And it's simply not notable when you take slipstream from each show mentioned in the article rather than cramming unrelated concepts together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Settlement movement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University Settlement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small, local NGO with no indication passing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) or WP:GNG. Prod by User:Ryecatcher773, deprod by User:Crouch, Swale who suggested a redirect. No objection to soft deletion by redirecting, but since Crouch didn't leave a merge/redirect proposal, and I am not so sure this is a good target, I am bringing this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the PROD because no one else had objected to it (so that it didn't become a red link). I think that because University settlement (small "s") redirects to Settlement movement, then the title with the capital "S" should also, see WP:DIFFCAPS, instead of it becoming a red link. My suggestion was that if it it not notable, it should be changed to a redirect, which is quite different to a standard merge/redirect in that it is being suggested to target a substantially unrelated target to the current topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LikeALittle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed site, not much coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ORGCRIT as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is already shown on the article page. It was featured in USA Today, The Toronto Star, Tech Crunch, etc. Cait.123 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability, another run-of-the-mill fails startup that once got some funding. Spammy article, including this gem in the lede "In 2011, TechCrunch reported that "Investors don't just like LikeALittle a little, they like it a lot."" Fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hot or Not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Hong (entrepreneur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot or Not per WP:CHEAP. I'm not seeing enough coverage of him outside of his creation of the website, only mentions in other articles referring to him as an angel investor after selling the website. Cait.123 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Helium Systems. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helium.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (what can be properly sourced) with its parent company's article Helium Systems. There's not enough information independent, sourced-material for it to stand on its own and pass WP:GNG. Cait.123 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atrina Brill

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero results on Google News; I've never seen that before. I could not locate any reliable third party sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Cait.123 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even by advice columnist standards Brill seems unnotable. It is not even clear that she has a regular publication home, as opposed to just an online presence. Advice columnists need widespread coverage of their work to be shown to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stet Her professional title is Atrina Lovekins, and she is sometimes simply "Atrina". Google will not show much under "Brill" as it is her birth name. https://www.atrina.nyc

In NYC she is one of the leaders in the sex-positive community, and as of this month she has just been named the cohost of a well-known advice column called "Poly Wanna Answer?" with Leon Feingold

- All of that seems to be true, but that isn't enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Any article has to meet the Notability guidelines. I haven't been able to find any credible third party coverage to show she meets this standards (under Lovekins, Brill, nothing). If you have any sources, please add them to the article. I'd happily change my mind if such sources exist. Cait.123 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I gave the google a little scour. Can't find anything that counts to GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one ref, does not seem notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Music of Grand Theft Auto V. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since my previous AfD failed, I'm giving it it a new try: This article is the textily incarnation of WP:GAMECRUFT, it does nothing but listing trivial information (song lists) from a game in a very unnavigable manor. Following a short introduction, a single section (which is, enhancedly, already present in another article) is followed by a three-page-long concatenation of tables of varying width, making hardly readable. The article relies heavily on a Metro news page (refd 33 times), and is essentially a carbon copy of it. The article also employs some original research, such as Mission names which are cited using the Metro source but not actually included in it, as well as some unsourced parts introduced by various editors. Overall, the article is trivial, uninformative and not of any encyclopedic value, and falls far out of the scope of our project, despite having a few sources. Because of this, it should be deleted or redirected to Music of Grand Theft Auto V, where all crucial information can be inserted. Everything else blongs to Wikia, not Wikipedia. Lordtobi (✉) 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This just seems like a giant tracklist and is superfluous to the Music of Grand Theft Auto V article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've no idea how to reply to this without editing this page but please don't delete this page. It's useful for quickly checking the full listings of each station which is especially handy for ensuring Spotify playlists aren't losing any songs. The other article you linked to the "Music of Grand Theft Auto V" seems to be about the separate CDs etc that were released in addition to the game and don't contain anywhere near the full track listings the game has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.7.92 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is not available anywhere else, can it not be transwikied to the GTA Wiki?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be transferred as the syntax is almost the same on Wikia. Lordtobi (✉) 13:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is already there. Lordtobi (✉) 13:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly a valid reason to be on Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. The discussion in the previous AFD does not seem to have provided reliable sources for this specific topic and thus made bald assertions of notability, and what is presently sourced in the article would probably fit quite nicely in Music of Grand Theft Auto V. --Izno (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. As I said in the previous nomination, article is fancruft—it belongs on the GTA Wiki, not Wikipedia. The only useful sections ("Production" and "Merchandise") already exist on Music of Grand Theft Auto V, and are written better there. – Rhain ☔ 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, agreeing with Izno and Rhain. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers Day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable community/organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and current sources are either unreliable, primary or self-published. The article was tagged with notability issue since November 2016‎ and since then it was expended by multiple spa users and now reads like a piece of promotion, nothing more. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 09:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Delete for me. It simply has a few paragraphs that are covered by inline citations leading to unreliable sources. It's more of a promotion, like @GSS-1987 says. This is my opinion. Thanks. CrayonS (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any more coverage than is already in the article, and that is all self-involved or self-sourced. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be the Same Tour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per NTOUR: no coverage of the tour as a whole. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is just WP:TOOSOON. The artist is one of the biggest names in music right now, and there's no doubt that this will have plenty of sources and reviews in a few months' time, and the attendance/gross receipts for each concert will be available from Billboard Boxscore. Perhaps this could be userfied for a couple of months until the tour gets under way. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 09:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not even exist yet and fails WP:NTOUR. Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor an announcement venue. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or userfy. WP:TOOSOON. If there is WP:RS coverage during or after the tour, at that time the article might be acceptable. Narky Blert (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft at least until after the tour has actually launched, and some performances have been reviewed. bd2412 T 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft not enough coverage yet. One of the sources is a twitter account. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tour begins in a month but the article is definitely lacking information (background, specifically). Is it really too soon for creation? Taylor Swift's Reputation Tour article was created as early as November 2017, and the tour doesn't begin until May of this year. Melodies1917 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectWise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only seeing PR releases, corporate profiles and unreliable sources, falling short of WP:CORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the concern about source validity: 1) The references do not include any PR releases. 2) The only reference that points to the corporate webpage is associated with noting the company's office locations. 3) The majority of the references point to articles from significant IT channel industry websites/publications (e.g., CRN, ChannelPro Network, Channel Futures) where content is written by independent journalists who cover ConnectWise, its competitors and news about the IT channel sector. Also, this is my first comment on an AfD. Trying to learn as I go; please kindly provide advice if I've misspoken here! Wordgirl60 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. References are either based on company announcements or rely on quotations, content not intellectually independent and in-depth. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 01:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 09:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:ORGIND. I couldn't find enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Cait.123 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Although many media references/sources may be unfamiliar to those outside of the IT channel sector, they are significant in this particular technology sector and the articles are written by independent journalists who cover the IT technology provider sector (example: CRN). New edits to the article indicate the company's significance by noting that one of its executives is a board membership for CompTIA, considered one of the IT industry's top trade associations as noted in the CompTIA Wikipedia article, and information about a January 2018 acquisition. Wordgirl60 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burr Smith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Robert Burr Smith was an enlisted man in E Company, 506th PIR during World War II; he was wounded twice. After the War, he left the active Army but was commissioned in the Army Reserve and qualified for Special Forces; he also worked for the CIA and spent some time in Laos during the Vietnam War. Neither his rank (highest lieutenant colonel) nor his awards (no specific record, but probable Purple Hearts) qualify him for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. While working for the CIA he was a liaison to the Delta Force and depending, on the source, either participated in the Iran hostage rescue attempt or was prohibited from participating. The non-public nature of his work for the CIA leaves him with no WP:NOTABILITY. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems well written and fairly well sourced considering the average quality of articles. When do the files on his CIA work get declassified? Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't worked in the classification system for more than thirty years, but the system is amazingly convoluted. Short answer is "who knows."Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't find any material on Smith on newspapers.com. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and the service does not include any papers from San Diego, where Smith retired. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and there's nothing better. Coverage is of routine nature, not amounting to WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 09:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a prominent member of Easy Company, failing SOLDIER, and his CIA work is shrouded in secrecy. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of public-access TV stations in the United States (Alaska–Connecticut)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm believe this falls under WP:NOTDIR. Additional reasons to delete are 1.The list is out of date and very difficult to maintain 2. It never has been reliably sourced, the links at the bottom which it seems to be based off of are not RS and likely out of date. 3. Even though websites are given for each channel, most do not work and some are not even legit. I see Yelp and Youtube in here, they are not official sites that can verify the station's existence. I am also nominating the remainder of the list (which appears in separate articles) Rusf10 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pages nominated for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are almost always non-notable, extremely local instutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. Störm (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Horrendous example of WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Rusf10, especially point #1. Also, I can't see anyone actually using this page for its actual purpose... WP:LINKFARM sums it up nicely. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the "creator" of at least some of these pages, by virtue of having manually split them from an overlong List of public-access TV stations in the United States back in the day: I've no objection to deletion of these lists, as they're definitely radiating a bit of cruftiness, but please do consider that once the subpages are deleted, someone(s) ought to keep an eye on the main "List of public-access TV stations in the United States" page to keep it from building back up to its (and the subpages') previous state. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideographic repertoire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomprehensible gibberish. It looks like it might be describing a character set, or the class of all such sets, but it‘s unclear what it is referring to. Also exists on the Chinese WP, but both that and the article here are orphans which suggests the term is unknown and unused by anyone else. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an experiment I tried running the Chinese version of the article through Google translate. The result was pretty much the article here, which explains the gibberish.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment GScholar gets hits on this but not one that obviously explains it. I'm gathering that it may be a bit of Unicode jargon. Mangoe (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I had a look at those, and there were only a handful of results to do with Unicode, CJK in particular. Searching I found another a couple more of our articles Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) and Chinese character description language#Ideographic Description Sequences which might be more closely related than character set. It may be the Chinese article was an attempt to write something on e.g. Ideographic Description Characters, which then ended up back here very badly translated.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also some some of the scholar results reference ISO 10646, which is Universal Coded Character Set – Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) also refers to this standard. Seems we have multiple in depth articles on this already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - No incoming links here so impact of removing something that we can't make sense of is not significant. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ECool

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most Google results are centered on his collaboration with Davido, but per WP:NOTINHERITED that does not translate to him being notable. Has not received any notable award/nom or gained major cult following. Per GNG, there is absolutely no single coverage from a reliable source that is centered on him. Fails the notability guidelines for musicians. The rate at which non-notable Nigerian musicians are staying on Wikipedia for so long, will make us lose credibility in the long run. How I wish Oluwa2Chainz was still here. Cleaning this aspect of Wikipedia up was his job. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. He hasn't released any albums with a label, been on tour, and there are not enough third party sources to indicate notability. Cait.123 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk Daily Fantasy Sports

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for entry. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Music

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was not able to find any significant references online. Article's references are mostly Youtube links and social media. London Hall (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Agustín Sarasa González at the very least. The refs are mostly in Spanish; I think it's unlikely there's enough to meet notability guidelines (as a producer; his career as a performer isn't notable) but I'm not confident enough to !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Štefan Beniač

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few sources, but I am iffy they pass muster. Seems unnotable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most sources appear to be in Slovak, but agree with nom: many of them appear to be primary sources and church records. I'll abstain from voting since I don't feel comfortable making a recommendation either way. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I see nothing notable in the present article text, but surely people do not get created as Papal Counts without some notability, so that I wonder if there may be more to be said. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the Slovak version of the article states that he was a member of the Second Slovak National Council, which would theoretically pass WP:POLITICIAN 1.--Jahaza (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this should be possible to verify using an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. With no prejudice against moving to another title if editors feel that is more appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayed Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-existent film actor. Both references used in source refer to well-known Bollywood actor Zayed Khan. The Zayed Khan who acts in the Nagar Mastan mentioned in this article. I tried to turn it into a redirect, but apparently some people need to be drawn a picture. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Not accurate both the sources, refer to a Bangladeshi actor with a similar name. If you read the sources it would become quite apparent that they are talking about two different individuals. Nagar Mastan is a Bangladeshi movie staring the Bangladeshi Jayed Khan and not the Bollywood actor Zayed Khan.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is this actor's name? Is it Jayed Khan or Zayed Khan? One of the sources used calls him Zayed Khan. The other gives me Zayed (not Jayed) through Google translation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure myself, transliteration of names in native languages (Bengali language) can be different in sources. I am not familiar with the actor.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name spelling is incorrect. Bangladeshi film actor Zayed Khan wel known actor and now general secretary of Cholochitro Shilpo Samiti, the organisation of local film artists. I think this article needs to improve. Don't delete the post. --Hasive • talk • 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has prominent roles in multiple films but only one seems to have an article Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lots of hits on actor Zayed Khan, but not sure if this is the correct one??. Would someone who is familiar with Bollywood help us out? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bn:জায়েদ খান (অভিনেতা) --আফতাব (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources found in Bengali wikipedia article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need to improve the article. --Hasive • talk • 14:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR as it requires significant roles in multiple notable films. There is only one film in his filmography that is blue-linked and even this doesn't seem notable. The Bengali language page doesn't have any more blue-linked films. There are no claims that despite not being blue linked that these films were notable. I'm not seeing GNG met either. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of blue links does not mean the films are not notable, it means the articles have not been created. Considering very few editors are making articles on Bangladeshi films and none on a regular basis, it is not surprising. The Bengali page does have more sources and might be enough to pass GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move I'm not familiar with the artist either, but with review, I think he is notable. However, current location Zayed_Khan_(Bangladesh) isn't appropriate; and it should be moved to Zayed_Khan_(Bangladeshi actor). --nafSadh did say 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10x Genomics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not cover the company itself in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and a business directory, not reliable third-party sources. I prodded the article a few days ago; the subsequent changes do not address the basic problems. Huon (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as article author): clearly I'd prefer that this article not be deleted, the 10x technology has been used in a number of studies, but I see your point that the page is about the company itself. I presume these links [17] [18] [19] have the same issues, before I edit the article?? Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, proving the notability of these young but active companies is always difficult. The Forbes article is a substantial coverage from a highly reputable source. BusinessWire can be relied on in its statement that the company is a "key player" in the (major) sequencing market. The 4 papers in Nature journals that mention the company demonstrate that its products are taken seriously by top scientists. These sources together certainly bring 10x Genomics to the threshold of notability. There seems to be a substantial business article at GenomeWeb (verifiable if anyone feels like registering for a free trial). There is a useful and well-written article on what seems to be an independent expert's blog at CoreGenomics. The FierceBiotech article is an additional substantial piece of business coverage by an independent journalist. Overall, the company is covered by a wide variety of business, scientific, and technical articles to a good depth. I'd say the company passes the GNG with multiple, reliable, substantial, and independent coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Souring is mostly directory listins (count nothing for notability), WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions.

BusinessWire : press release distribution service. Originates from the company.
Forbes : this is not the editorial arm, but the blogging side, as as forbes.com/sites/ which is user submitted. Deos not count for notability.
genomweb.com is a news site, but as a highly specialised one, it does not meet WP:AUD
Etc.

In general, WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. Promotionalism-only on an early-stage company. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blog of a reputable organisation like Forbes is a serious, carefully thought out and reliable source, consistent with Wikipedia policy. The fear about other kinds of blog is a different matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

forbes.com/sites/ is not an editorial blog; it's a user-submitted area for (generally promotional) content from (often affiliated) contributors. See for example this WP:RSN discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Forbes/Forbes.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reason why proving the notability is hard of these companies is because they aren't generally notable. Per K.e. coffman Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhurwaayaale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, this time, the feature is plainly there, and it's a hill, as described: but is a hill notable? I found one incidental mention in the preface to this poem, but Google translate was not helpful. Mangoe (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general named geographics are often (but not always) considered notable, but I can't see anything relevant about it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd almost start up a policy discussion on these stubs to better delete them. I'm having trouble deciding how to vote myself. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the policy already allows deletion of less relevant stubby articles, it's not giving any "inherent notability", merely stating Named natural features are often notable. In fact it says:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

So in this situation, this hill may be mentioned in the article on the geography of the region, since it cannot be developed using known sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Prince of Thieves (thank you for that!) SportingFlyer (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 07:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Foundation for Sustainable Development in Africa and Asia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:ORGCRIT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient significant independent coverage. Wiki article has no body text. German organization that has no article on German wiki. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debarar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Different ~~mapping service~~ geonames dump, more hits with catalogue etc. sites running off the coords, but geonames says "unverified" and the aerials say there's no there there. Mangoe (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be anything there. Quick search shows nothing, therefore it's likely another non-place slowly becoming more 'real' via automated coord grabbing. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substance, proof, citations, real information, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Ali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The article was created by a banned user with a negative view and guilt-by-association, and has been the subject of back and forth edit wars, legal threats and now is basically just referenced to primary sources. The last editor may be the subject or a very close friend as he knows about his school days, but still the section on early life looks odd and should be removed under BLP (his parents ran a sweat shop? Him going to the same school as the Krays half a century later is guilt by association too). Really the only claim to notability of this person is being the subject of numerous negative articles and documentaries by a journalist. These were published in The Daily Telegraph, which is a reliable source, but the new revision of the article has refutations of the allegations which are published by MEND, the subject's own organisation. This is a BLP headache. Add to this that the subject has lost a libel case against another newspaper for these allegations. [20] There is an ongoing legal challenge about an article in The Times last year. [21] While a subject being controversial is not a reason to delete an article, this article fails in notability as there are not enough reliable third-party sources on the subject. This is merely a battlefield article on somebody who is not notable. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only published source I can find on the subject comes [22] here in a book by Nigel Copsey. Copsey is a professor of History, specialising in fascism and anti-fascism. [23] The one mention in this one book says that Ali held a role for the Islamic Forum of Europe, an offshoot of Jamaat-e-Islami, but that is still a) technically guilt by association, and b) not at all enough to guarantee notability. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - news coverage of the subject who has been covered in depth by reputable sources, passes SIGCOV. Deletion is not cleanup, if there are problems with NPOV in the article they should be fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently all of those reputable sources were tabloid attacks, as they've all been deleted and not restored. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a COI situation here then take it to the Conflict of Interest board. Investigative journalism by the Telegraph and others is not a tabloid attack.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom's assertion that Azad Ali is NOTPUBLICFIGURE is frankly surreal in light of the fact that Ali has been a well-known and very public advocate for various causes in Britain for many years; he has even been Chair of the quasi-official Muslim Safety Forum. This is what a PUBLICFIGURE looks like. Article could use improvement (what else is new), and contains a number of unreliable and primary sources, but it also has many WP:RS], and many more are available in searches. Keep as per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the published sources get removed as racist/biased/libelous, so there's no point even trying to improve this. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion. If the article is biased or inaccurate, it can be edited for NPOV, but The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and a long list of list of major media in the U.S., Canada, and other countries have WP:INDEPTH coverage of Ali. Coverage is readily available in a new archive search (more efficient to use keywords like London , Muslim Safety Forum, and the other organizations he was part of since his is a somewhat common name). And be aware that most of his public activity took place a decade or so ago, making news archive searches more efficient than gNews. But coverage of his political (campaigning for Ken Livingstone in 2010) and civic activities that more than meets WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. Both of these contributors have highlighted that there is reliable coverage of this person which shouldn't have been removed. As there is a history of COI/legal threats in the page history I will keep an eye out for that in the future. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vase of Entemena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on insufficiently notable item. The article isn't even consistent on how to spell it. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Entemena. This vase of Entemena (English) or Enmetena (French) is quite famous and a prize in the collection of the Louvre. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge was pleasantly surprised to find a number of sources on this vase very quickly: [24] [25] [26] [27] I also don't know what this is but it may be a related academic article on the vase [28] SportingFlyer talk 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has received a ridiculous amount of attention in many, many books and articles. Big WP:BEFORE failure. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The vase is notable in its own right. A quick Google scholar search shows that papers haven been written about this object since at least 1895.[29] Multiple books and papers touch on this object. "[from Mesopotamia] The most well-known silver objects are the Lyre of Ur and the silver vase of Entemena of Lagash from Tello (ca. 2450 bc).[30] Fraenir (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is easily established with a GScholar search. Thanks to the IP editor for adding references. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article certainly needs more citations and more detail, but that is no ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stockmann, Tampere

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: While the company is undoubtedly notable, not every individual location of it is. There are not enough sources available about this location specifically to justify a standalone article about it. The Finnish article has only one independent source, and it's an announcement about renovations being complete.

De-PROD reason was "if it's Finland's second oldest department store then it's probably notable", but this reasoning conflates the location with the company. The Stockmann company is undoubtedly notable. However, just being its second oldest location is not inherently notable in the absence of any sources that consider it to be of historical interest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to Stockmann. Insufficiently notable single store in a franchise. I'm not finding any mentions of this single store in books or significant reliable-source independent coverage (except possibly in the town itself) otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search considering it might it pass WP:GEOFEAT due to some sort of architectural significance and got nothing. The flagship store may be notable as a building, this is not, the only secondary source I could find in English was about the start of renovations. SportingFlyer talk 06:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oka NEV ZEV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a fair bit of searching, I'm unable to locate any substantial secondary source material for this product. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient substantial significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schoola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious undeclared commissioned work of borderline notability at best that is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM and WP:YELLOWPAGES. This is nothing more than an yellow pages listing and promotional blurb. The SFChronicle coverage is pretty local and focuses on the local nature, and the Business Insider piece is mainly about the tech celebrities/business people who are helping fundraise for it. TechCrunch isn't reliable for purposes of notability, and the LA Times piece is a paid advertisement (declared on the piece). This is an attempt at native advertising and should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline with GNG, not too badly referenced, but clearly Native advertising. As Tony said, it is a WP:YELLOWPAGES and is not excluded from WP:NOTSPAM, so it has to be deleted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and block the article creator so we do not have to waste anymore of our freely given time on their paid WP:TOU violations. They are not an asset to the community. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sourcing is peripheral at best and that leaves us with an advertisement, not an article. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ardis E. Parshall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Parshall does not pass any notability criteria. The 3 sources do not amount to substantial coverage in 3rd person, reliable sources. The two I can see are a brief mention in acknowledgements to a book, and a briefer mention as one of multiple speakers at a conference in Utah being highlighted in an article in a Utah newspaper. This is not the stuff that would show any historian to be notable. On the side of her academic activities, the only one by Parshall that seems substantial is co-editing an encyclopedia of Mormon history. However this does not seem to rise to the level of academic notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A blp subject must have at least two mainstrem media sources that signify her garnering "significant coverage

in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In Parshalls case, this threshhold is reached. wp:WEB indicates web content notable "if the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries [...and] websites." I could be here linking to blog mentions of Ardis and Keepa. Instead I'll cite two instances she earned major coverage.

A profile feature at Religion News solely concerning a project of hers of great public interest. https://religionnews.com/2015/05/28/mormon-kickstarter-campaign-places-women-at-center-stage-in-lds-history/
"Mormon Church historian Ardis E. Parshall’s ready access to archival materials underpins her mostly humorous posts on LDS history and culture, along with fiction, jokes, and art from past church magazines, found at Keepapitchinin." --Oxford Univ. Press blog
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not actually notability as author. With respect to the blog, it would be necesaary to show, first, that the blog is notable,and second that her specific role in running it is notable also, and the mention among many other blogs in the OUP posting is not sufficient. She is co-editor of Mormonism : a historical encyclopedia by ABCCLIO, a standard reference work held every important library, but that alone is not enough. She is co-editor of Dime novel Mormons, but it is held in almost no libraries. Books in preparation don't count for anything. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Keepapitchin'in is a one-woman blog. She has no perma co-authors there but the very occassional guest author or two.[31]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator - in terms of WP:AUTHOR, she hasn't quite done anything notable yet, even with the curated encyclopedia. Perhaps she'll get there with her kickstarter book. I don't think either of the sources identified above in this AfD are helpful, either: the kickstarter runs into WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL problems, and she gets only a trivial mention in the Oxford source. Also, running a blog does not convey notability. Delete for not satisfying WP:AUTHOR. SportingFlyer talk 06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. A niche (in this case Mormon history) blogger or freelancer has to reach a pretty high threshold for Wikipedia inclusion, and this person is not there yet. The fact that they have a "book in progress" seems to indicate that that threshold may be met when the book is published and the author receives more recognition. This is why I suggest WP:USERFY, or that the article creator (Hodgdon's secret garden) keep a copy of the wiki article, for use for if/when that happens, in case the threshold is more clearly met at that point. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish I could say I see some evidence of notability but I don't. Deb (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find enough reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Absent the coverage of the blog, it's hard to show that it is notable. Probably the most notable item is being a columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune, but even then a search brings up a handful of her articles, yet no coverage of her. [[32]] I'm not sure there's enough here to even warrant userfying it, but would have no problem with doing so. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Cheng (pseudonym)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Wang Cheng" isn't even his real name: [33]: "Xin'an Evening News reported on Wednesday that an Anqing official in East China's Anhui province, identified by a pseudonym Wang Cheng, has... The sensational news report, disclosing neither Wang's real name nor his exact department, soon drew...". This guy obviously doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN: he was just a mid-level commercial department official in a mid-sized city (by Chinese standards). As is often with sex scandals there was some coverage, but only in 2010, so WP:BLP1E also applies. He deserves at most a 1-sentence mention somewhere on Corruption in China. Timmyshin (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timmyshin. There were a couple of problems with this. The title you moved it to was a BLP problem and not really neutral. Also you created the before you moved the article making the AfD link to the wrong article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete to Corruption in China - Might be best to just merge the scandal part to mentioned page and delete the rest - fails WP:NBIO. Also, consider following procedure with problems with BLP. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not quite OK with desparaging a 5 million plus person city as anything but large, but Cheng (or whatever his name was actually) was not a major figure in the city, just a mid-level functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anqing has only 780,514 people, which is small for China (Shanghai has 20 million urban residents). The 5 million number includes people from the adjacent rural areas, which have a completely different way of life. Timmyshin (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tabloid material, fails WP:GNG. Not even his real name is known. Nothing to merge. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS, not notable, and as said Zahne, not even his real name is known. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hunt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards "Wall Of Fame" (same as Grabby Award) does not qualify under PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moochers (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A TV movie that didn't get much, if any, notice. Fails WP:NFILM and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A truly insignificant and non-notable TV film. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collin O'Neal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable adult performer. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. There's minor controversy about having been fired from a teaching position, but this does not amount to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a pseudonymous porn star, a clear failure of GNG and also the pornactor SNG. A closer call as a result of coverage of his dismissal and reinstatement as a schoolteacher because of his former occupational background. That is ultimately a BLP-1E situation, however. I can see no compelling reason why this biography should exist. Carrite (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Landon

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBIO as pornographic awards are not usually notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails PORNBIO, NPERSON, and no RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBN repeaters in the Tampa Bay DMA

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BROADCAST and WP:COMPANY. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doubtful notability.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per WP:BROADCAST, they are just repeaters, no original programming.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amos J. Taylor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amos J. Taylor was an NCO in E Company, 506th PIR during World War II; he was wounded twice and injured in a motorcycle accident once. After the War, he worked briefly for the Veterans Administration and later had a career with the CIA; At least one assignment with the CIA required a cover assignment as a photo consultant in Taiwan while he was in Laos for an unspecified period. Taylor's rank (staff sergeant) and lack of awards (highest: Purple Heart) do not qualify him for inclusion based on WP:SOLDIER; his employment with the CIA could be significant but is not on the public record. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Georgia Army Vet. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His WWII role is not enough for notability. Until actual sources show otherwise, neither is whatever he did for the CIA.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellac (musician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography with social media being the only references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently AfDed as I was PRODing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walter Görlitz. Never heard of them, and I doubt most have either, so I agree with statements made. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please delete it. That's my opinion. The only sources are from social media (very unreliable, worst than a fan page). Also, it is hardly notable. WP:N and WP:V is significantly low. The article's main subject, finncannon is the username of the one who wrote it too and he has obviously uploaded a photo of himself. finncannon, I've briefly listened to your music (on Spotify) just a while ago and it is quite nice (but not very long). It's just that you need to be more popular around the music industry for us to give you a page. Sorry. One day, someone may write an article about you, if you ever become famous. Wikipedia is very strict on rules. I wish you success and luck in the future. Thanks. CrayonS (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable self-promotional article. Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Promotional, self-serving article by SPA editor of a subject (himself?) that shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not the place to launch a musical career, or post selfies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independant coverage at all. NN Acebulf (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn due to user error. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family Peace Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a promotion of an organization. Only source is a link to the official website. Also, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, since the organization was founded in December 2017 (which is relatively recent). Kirbanzo (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has references from many sources, including scholarly research. I would argue that it is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, because although the organization itself was founded recently, it refers to the history behind its founding and relation to the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. However, I will add more sources and content to address both of these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineSky (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples of the diverse sources, none of which are directly related to the organization or the organization's official website: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17] PineSky (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alright, didn't see those sources first time around, so you're good, will close. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Introvigne, Massimo. "Unification Movement Schismatic Groups (2012-Present) – WRSP". wrldrels.org. World Religions and Spirituality. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ Introvigne, Massimo. "Family Peace Association – WRSP". wrldrels.org. World Religions and Spirituality. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "Today's World - July 1998 - Volume 19, Number 7" (PDF). Unification.net. World Mission Department of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ Moon, Sun Myung. "THE FAMILY FEDERATION FOR COSMIC PEACE AND UNIFICATION AND THE COSMIC ERA OF BLESSED FAMILY". Unification.net. Retrieved 28 February 2018. Up until now, the religions of the world have focused upon individual level salvation. But once we come out of that shell and follow True Parents we enter into the family level.... For this purpose, Father took down the HSA-UWC sign and placed a new sign: The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification... we are living in the cosmic era of Blessed families... The members of the Family Federation for World Peace are not just Christians. They are the sovereigns of nations and powerful leaders.
^ Introvigne, Massimo, 2000, The Unification Church Studies in Contemporary Religion, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, ISBN 1-56085-145-7, pages 47-52
^ Moon, Sun Myung (1985). "34". God's will and the world. New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. ISBN 978-0910621472. Retrieved 28 February 2018. So why the term, "Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity"? ...when a marginal man such as Reverend Moon is attempting to unite world Christianity, everybody always feels uncomfortable... By what means can I unite Christianity throughout the world? By the Holy Spirit. Hence the name Holy Spirit Association… The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity means an association, not a church.
^ Fisher, Marc; Leen, Jeff. "WashingtonPost.com: The Cult Controversy". www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ Introvigne, Massimo. "CESNUR - From the Unification Church to the Unification Movement, 1994-1999: Five Years of Dramatic Changes". www.cesnur.org. Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ 송, 홍근. "문현진 가정평화협회 창설자". shindonga.donga.com (in Korean). Shin Dong A. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "가정평화협회 창설". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "가정평화협회 창설". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "가정평화협회 창설, 환영사하는 곽진만 조직위원장". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "문현진 곽전숙 가정평화협회 창설자 내외". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "기조연설하는 문현진 박사". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.
^ "가정평화협회 창설". Segye Times (in Korean). Retrieved 1 March 2018.
^ "기조연설하는 문현진 박사". Buja Dongne Times (in Korean). Retrieved 1 March 2018.
^ "가정평화협회 창설, 축사하는 사이드 아킬 시라즈 총재". 중앙일보 (in Korean). 4 December 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2018.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Florida (Militia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:ADVOCACY page for a non-notable organisation. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group) for an article on the same group previously deleted. Borderline WP:HOAX which does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coffman. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering speedy delete - from the looks of things (and opinions so far, this seems to be possibly eligible for a G11 speedy delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbanzo (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable group, made false claims in order to try and draw attention to itself during Douglas HS shooting. Their claims were briefly repeated, then retracted as fake. Their hoax didn't last long enough to have any lasting impact. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or failing that, Keep The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Their notability did come from the hoax, but it remains that they did receive non-trivial coverage. I would be open to merging it if a suitable location is found. Acebulf (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge it with the shooting article itself? Kirbanzo (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's been discussed in Time, Newsweek, et cetera, but almost all around the exact same time as a result of the shooting. I have no problems with deleting on WP:ADVOCACY grounds or keeping with some WP:TNT as it probably satisfies WP:GNG in some manner, be it event or organization, but not as it currently stands. SportingFlyer talk 08:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or failing that, Keep An encyclopedia article should inform. An encyclopedia article does not imply advocacy. For that reason, I believe this should be a merge or a keep, as ugly as this article might become. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is a substantial group that merits coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the content has been rejected from the Parkland shooting article here:

Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive_3#Claims by Republic of Florida

Merging this content would be undue in the proposed target and would likely be rejected there again. I thus oppose merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Introvigne, Massimo. "Unification Movement Schismatic Groups (2012-Present) – WRSP". wrldrels.org. World Religions and Spirituality. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[2] Introvigne, Massimo. "Family Peace Association – WRSP". wrldrels.org. World Religions and Spirituality. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[3] "Today's World - July 1998 - Volume 19, Number 7" (PDF). Unification.net. World Mission Department of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[4] Moon, Sun Myung. "THE FAMILY FEDERATION FOR COSMIC PEACE AND UNIFICATION AND THE COSMIC ERA OF BLESSED FAMILY". Unification.net. Retrieved 28 February 2018. Up until now, the religions of the world have focused upon individual level salvation. But once we come out of that shell and follow True Parents we enter into the family level.... For this purpose, Father took down the HSA-UWC sign and placed a new sign: The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification... we are living in the cosmic era of Blessed families... The members of the Family Federation for World Peace are not just Christians. They are the sovereigns of nations and powerful leaders.

[5] Introvigne, Massimo, 2000, The Unification Church Studies in Contemporary Religion, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, ISBN 1-56085-145-7, pages 47-52

[6] Moon, Sun Myung (1985). "34". God's will and the world. New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. ISBN 978-0910621472. Retrieved 28 February 2018. So why the term, "Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity"? ...when a marginal man such as Reverend Moon is attempting to unite world Christianity, everybody always feels uncomfortable... By what means can I unite Christianity throughout the world? By the Holy Spirit. Hence the name Holy Spirit Association… The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity means an association, not a church.

[7] Fisher, Marc; Leen, Jeff. "WashingtonPost.com: The Cult Controversy". www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[8] Introvigne, Massimo. "CESNUR - From the Unification Church to the Unification Movement, 1994-1999: Five Years of Dramatic Changes". www.cesnur.org. Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[9] 송, 홍근. "문현진 가정평화협회 창설자". shindonga.donga.com (in Korean). Shin Dong A. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[10] "가정평화협회 창설". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[11] "가정평화협회 창설". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[12] "가정평화협회 창설, 환영사하는 곽진만 조직위원장". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[13] "문현진 곽전숙 가정평화협회 창설자 내외". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[14] "기조연설하는 문현진 박사". newsis (in Korean). Retrieved 28 February 2018.

[15] "가정평화협회 창설". Segye Times (in Korean). Retrieved 1 March 2018.

[16] "기조연설하는 문현진 박사". Buja Dongne Times (in Korean). Retrieved 1 March 2018.

[17] "가정평화협회 창설, 축사하는 사이드 아킬 시라즈 총재". 중앙일보 (in Korean). 4 December 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]